L-A-B-R, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405

Immigration judges may grant continuances only "for good cause shown" under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; respondents often seek continuances to pursue collateral relief (e.g., USCIS visa petitions) that could affect removal outcomes.
The Board previously adopted a multifactor test (Matter of Hashmi) for continuances tied to visa petitions; courts have both cited and criticized aspects of that framework.
DHS appealed three immigration-judge orders that granted continuances over DHS objections (respondents sought time for family/adjustment, waivers, and a gubernatorial pardon); the Board declined interlocutory review and the Attorney General took the cases up for guidance.
The Attorney General held that the good-cause standard is substantive (not a nullity) and requires a multifactor balancing test when continuances are requested to pursue collateral proceedings.
The principal focus must be on (1) the likelihood the collateral relief will be granted, and (2) whether that relief will materially affect the removal proceedings; secondary factors include respondent diligence, DHS’s position, length/number of continuances, timing, and administrative efficiency.
The opinion vacates the Board’s refusals to entertain DHS’s appeals and remands for application of this clarified standard; respondents bear the burden to prove good cause and should submit supporting evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning/scope of "good cause" for continuances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29	Good cause can be satisfied by seeking collateral relief that might conceivably help; courts/Board should be permissive.	Good cause is a substantive constraint that limits IJ discretion; not met by speculative filings or delays.	"Good cause" requires a multifactor balancing test with substantive limits; not a blank check for continuances.
Proper test for continuances to pursue collateral relief	Hashmi multifactor approach is appropriate and should control.	DHS argued Board misapplied or overextended Hashmi; sought more stringent limits.	Apply multifactor analysis but make likelihood of success and material effect the primary considerations.
Weight of DHS’s position and administrative efficiency	Respondents: DHS opposition should not be dispositive if collateral relief is promising.	DHS: its position and court efficiency are important and can defeat continuances.	DHS’s position and efficiency concerns are relevant secondary factors but do not control the inquiry.
Burden of proof and required record/explanation	Respondents: IJ may grant continuance on limited showing.	DHS: IJs should require documentary proof and reasoned findings to prevent abusive delays.	Respondents bear burden to show good cause; IJs should require evidence and state reasons on the record.

Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009) (good-cause standard confines IJ discretion; IJs must inquire into existence of good cause)
Cadavedo v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2016) (endorsing Hashmi as correct legal standard)
Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing Hashmi factors as commonsense)
INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985) (recognizing incentive of aliens to prolong litigation to delay removal)
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002) (continuances can be used as delaying tactics and must be constrained)
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) ("good cause" is a meaningful limitation on discretionary procedures)